Growing Number Of People Agree That Ed Snowden Is A Whistleblower
from the moving-in-the-right-direction dept
A new poll from Quinnipiac University suggests that, despite widespread efforts by politicians to attack and demonize Ed Snowden, a growing percentage of the American population views him as a whistleblower. It's now up to 57% from what had been 55% in the last poll. The same poll also showed that a majority of people now think that the US government's anti-terrorism policies have "gone too far." It cracked 51%, up from 45% right after the first Snowden revelation, and way up from the 25% who felt that way back in 2010. The poll also suggests that fewer and fewer people support the Section 215 bulk metadata collection program, even when it's framed with this question, which I would imagine most people are biased towards agreeing with:"Do you support or oppose the federal government program in which all phone calls are scanned to see if any calls are going to a phone number linked to terrorism?"After the Snowden leaks, 51% of people supported that description of the program, while 45% opposed. Now it's down to 48% support and up to 47% opposed. Similarly, the percentage of people who claim this program "is necessary to keep Americans safe" has dropped from 54% down to 48%. Perhaps it helps that multiple studies have now shown that the program has not helped.
It's certainly slow going, but it certainly appears that the trend in public opinion is moving against these programs and increasingly in support of Snowden.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ed snowden, whistleblower
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just hang in there, liberty. Sometimes things do get better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the government and associated security forces got caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, were exposed to the world, because the world was/is involved and obviously didn't like it. the naughty bit was using the power of their positions to try to screw someone for dishing out embarrassment by claiming him to be a traitor. that is typical of governments today. they want the backing of the people, but when the people find out what is being taken from them, covertly or 'in their name', they dont like it but the response is always OTT 'because they can'!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 17th, 2014 @ 5:06am
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I second this!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 17th, 2014 @ 5:06am
[ link to this | view in thread ]
On the other hand, I do think that this change will turn out to be a viable trend. Every morning, I hear one more news story where the NSA and their proponents continue to state that:
They did nothing wrong,
The evidence against them doesn't matter,
They don't want to change, and
Anyone asking them to is an enemy or a traitor.
That kind of hubris gets old after a while.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Very Telling
Imagine how much worse the figures would look if the questions weren't leading...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
He decided on his own that he was right in his views and others charged with security activities were wrong, violating constitutional principles embraced in our laws. Problem with this, however, is that there is absolutely no unanimity of opinion on the merits of his views from a legal sense. Certainly, most members of the judiciary disagree with his "legal opinion", in which case it is he who is likely wrong. This does not mean that reconsiderations of policy are unnecessary, but only that unilateral action as he undertook by making a data dump of highly classified materials to a persons outside the US, allegedly surrendering complete control of what and how they would be disclosed, and they flying off to a country to be outside the reach of US authorities are not actions that strike me as exhibiting conviction and the willingness to stand up for one's principles in the face of great personal sacrifice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
As for the running away, are you suggesting that in order to be a whistleblower it's mandatory to also be a martyr?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Ignoring the weird sainthood reference, it's certainly not premature to call him a whistleblower. He say wrongdoing. He alerted us to it. He's a whistleblower. It's pretty basic.
That's right. Just like every other whistleblower.
That's not certain at all. Outside of the FISC, most members of the judiciary have not presided over a case that involves these issues. Of the two that have, there's a 50-50 split in opinion.
Without Snowden, these reconsiderations would never have happened.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It is not showing much in terms of movement of opinion based on medias stories, which is what Mike could be accused of saying, but neither does it show a movement in the other direction, making the counter-thesis even less trustworthy.
When it comes to statistical certainty, you can lower the bar from 95 % confidence to, say 50 %, in which case the result is a signficant movement towards more trust in Snowden and less in the surveillance.
Nobody wants to read about how the change in data is insignificant and doesn't mean anything. Using a 99 % or 95 % confidence interval is good if the numbers have to be used in scientific models, but if significance level is used to "debunk" trends, it is on its own a bias in interpretation. In other words: No truth exist in the world of statistics, but it doesn't mean every statement is equal!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The only actions Snowden took were to speak up about some things and bring evidence to back himself up. He is the first to provide substantial evidence. He is not the first to speak out about these things. He decided on his own... about his own actions. He didn't unilaterally change the NSA to fit his vision.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Now, policy arguments can be made with facility that existing law is too broad and impinges upon important privacy interests, so I am not suggesting that the law as it is being applied in optimal (or even necessary) for our national security interests. I am saying that policy is the role we have delegated to Congress, and it is that deliberative body to which policy concerns should be provided...and not some expatriate news reporter as in the case here. There are ways force such policy discussions. I find it nothing short of remarkable that Snowden was able to copy all of this information, but apparently unable to get it in the hands of persons within our government who would act upon it responsibly and without disclosing our secrets to the entire world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
BTW, the FISC membership is comprised of practicing federal judges who, in addition to their regular duties as judges presiding at locations all over the United States, are required on a rotating basis to travel to DC to preside over requests that a warrant issue. I mention this only because it seems many appear to believe in error that these judges sit only of the FISC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Many have been trying for years, including a few members of Congress. Clearly Snowden's method was necessary to actually bring about the discussion.
Basically, when determining whether an activity is whistle-blowing, you need to look for a few things:
1) Is the activity occurring? [yes]
2) Is the activity reasonably alleged as a violation? [roughly 50% of the population sees it as a violation, so yes]
3 )Does the group alerted have authority over the group carrying out the activity? [of the people, by the people, for the people]
4) Did the supposed whistle-blowing intentionally cause real, demonstrable and similar or disproportionate (in relation to the severity of the violation alleged to have occurred) harm? [nope]
If 1-3 are yes, you are dealing with a whistle-blower unless 4 is also yes. If all 4 are yes, you are dealing with espionage masquerading as whistle-blowing. If any of 1-3 are not yes, then you are dealing with advocacy, dissent or slander.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
... all appointed by the same guy (the Chief Justice), and the recent statements rubbishing the possibility of an adversarial role in the court, a broader source of members etc is somewhat dismaying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Zem on Jan 17th, 2014 @ 4:19am
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If it is deemed proper to have legal opinions by the offices of the various agencies considered to provide a second set of eyes to promote impartiality, warrant proceedings is one of the last places I would second such an individual.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Snowden for President?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and so?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
And when Congress fails in their duty, it is the responsibility of each of us as citizens to.
There are? What are they? All of the whistleblowers on this issue prior to Snowden tried the sanctioned ways of doing this, and all were ignored. And most were punished. Snowden did this the way he did because he learned from their experiences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The rest of the poll is not so favorable to Snowden...
Snowden may not be view as a traitor by most people, but neither are most people viewing him as a hero.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can argue his motives if you must, but his actions are textbook whistleblower. Really? Who? Even now, after months of media coverage and with a decent portion of public opinion to provide a political flak-jacket the vision from this side of the pond suggests that only a relative handful of "the government" are digging for real answers. Would they have done as much (read: anything) without public opinion to back them up?
Suggesting he "should have gone to the government" is artful at best when it's become clear "the government" is a cunning combination of ostrich, clueless and deliberately misinformed when it comes to intelligence oversight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Surprises
I always thought the NSA was listening and I have never thought twice about it. Why are all you people so up in arms about being monitored? If there were no morons in the world, I would agree with you, but there are numerous morons who would like us all to disintegrate. I believe our security systems save us from those morons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
seriously?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Surprises
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right. But they are going before the FISC to get approval to collect information WITHOUT a warrant. So your point then is? Sounds to me like they are using the FISC for a purpose that it was never intended in direct violation of the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Surprises
There is no indication that this monitoring has saved us from anything at all -- even NSA senior officials have admitted as much now -- but even if they did, I would still be opposed.
These sorts of programs do not make us safer. At best, they only change which group of people are the threat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because you know if you have nothing to hide. Unless your the NSA, a contractor, the USG or a multitude of other important people who call terrorist and national security. In that case if anything comes to light the person is a traitor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Surprises
Please sir post your phone logs and emails for the last 5 years to this public message board along with your name and address if you feel none of this information should be private.
Oh whats that no thats private information. Thats what i thought!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Snowden has not made a "data dump" as you put it but released the files slowly and carefully through his chosen advocates.
Both people he released to are American, and outside the US is the safest way to do what needs to be done.
They have conviction, but having it does not mean they should be stupid and trust the system in the USA, which has proved not only to be unsafe, but one that will do it's utmost to quash as much as it can anything detrimental to it.
He didn't decide he was right, he gave people the chance to make up there own minds.
certainly it is unknown how many of the judiciary agree or disagree, as yet I have not seen such a poll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: No Surprises
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The rest of the poll is not so favorable to Snowden...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 17th, 2014 @ 5:06am
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What we need
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What we need
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Surprises
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and "all the others" consists of one. 50-50 split. I may have missed something, but outside of these two the other courts who have seen this issue come before them have declined to rule one way or the other because they determined there was a lack of standing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ahemalarkyahem
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ahemalarkyahem
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: ahemalarkyahem
Because [CLASSIFIED].
Yeah, anytime you've got someone making claims about 'putting soldiers lives at risk', without actually backing the claims up with evidence, just assume it's an emotional plea. Remember, they did the exact same thing with Manning, claiming that 'soldiers would be put at risk and die!', and yet even the government couldn't find a single case, not one death they could definitively blame Manning for, despite having three years to look.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Look at what they have done in secret already. You think it won't happen again? They know what is best for us. This must be done at all costs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: ahemalarkyahem
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The 48%
Obama was principally elected by the coasts and the north central part of the county, and the states in the south and the west extending from Arizona to Montana and the Dakotas voted against him. During the last election, I did not know anyone who voted for Obama, and yet he was elected. However, I do not believe in internet conspiracies and being misled by trolls.
What I believe is that the more populous states on the coast outvoted the less populous states in the rest of the country. Such may be the case with respect to the 48%. Large swaths of the country still have faith in our government, regardless of how badly the government is failing them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Surprises
I always thought the NSA was listening and I have never thought twice about it. Why are all you people so up in arms about being monitored? If there were no morons in the world, I would agree with you, but there are numerous morons who would like us all to disintegrate. I believe our security systems save us from those morons."
Unfortunately, you and your mind set are the majority of the people in the NSA who think that Ed Snowden should be convicted of treason before being tried for it, or at least eliminated from the world.
You, and your brethren are what's wrong in this country.
There are those of us who value privacy and our Constitutional rights. Obviously you do not.
Thankfully there are more of us than your type of thinking, otherwise we'd have thrown out the Constitution back on 9/11. We came very close to doing that.
But as it is right now, 20 years later, we're still dealing with the aftermath of a bunch of people who had no right to tamper with it but did so anyway, and unleashed this beast called the security state.
What was it that Ben Franklin said?
"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
[ link to this | view in thread ]